P3D Re: judging stereo cards

["Greg Wageman" <gjw@xxxxxxxxxx>]

From: Alan Lewis <dlewis@xxxxxxxxxxxx>


>George wrote:
>  My impressions:
>>
>> 1. Glossy finish works better than matte!  Matte finish was giving
>>    reflections and I had to move the viewer around to avoid them.
>
>
>Interesting.  I'm a firm believer that matte is better than glossy.  I
>always have reflection problems with glossy, very rarely with matte.


I find that matte finishes cause random binocular disparities that annoy
much like pronounced grain does.  But glossy does have glare problems
(depending on the light source; I find that a window looking out on a
sunny day but without direct sunshine works well.  This may be difficult
to come by at night. (-: ).

>> 2. Lack of sharpness was evident in many pairs.  I am not sure if it
>>    is the camera or the processing.  Alan Lewis has mentioned the
>>    problem with getting sharp prints for stereo pairs.
>
>It's usually the printer.  Many 1 hour labs never check focus because
>nobody complains.  Until I came along ,that is.....  Now they check
>focus.  :-)

I was reading one of the photography FAQs recently, and it was mentioned
that the modulation transfer function (MTF), which dictates overall
sharpness, is essentially the product of every step in the imaging
process.  We usually talk about prints being "second generation", but in
fact, prints have both the MTF of the enlarging lens AND the MTF of the
printing paper factored in, compared to what slides taken with the same
equipment would have.

Of course enlarger focus is an issue, but even given "perfect" focus
there is going to be more degradation in a print due to imperfections in
the enlarger glass and the medium itself.

     -Greg W. (gjw@xxxxxxxxxx)



------------------------------